The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) logo.
Credit: X/@CBFC_MIB
Film certification has been problematic for long, and in recent months, considerations not normally associated with it are seen to be influencing it. The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has the mandate to certify films on the basis of their suitability for public viewing, but the exercise has sometimes turned into control through censorship. The recent controversies over two films —actor Vijay’s Jana Nayagan and Sivakarthikeyan’s Parasakthi — show the CBFC acting beyond itself. The impact is big because cinema is a mass medium with a reach larger than other art forms; it can influence areas such as finance, law and order, and politics. The developments have assumed extra significance in Tamil Nadu, where films have had an important role to play in society and politics. While films have influenced politics and may even be political, the CBFC should not be influenced by politics.
The CBFC suggested such a large number of cuts in Parashakti just before its release that it raised doubts about its motives. The film has a theme set in 1960s Tamil Nadu, when the state saw the rise of the Dravidian and anti-Hindi movements. The film made a fictional rendering of historical events through the filmmaker’s perspective. But the problem with the large-scale changes and revisions sought by the CBSE is that they change the narrative and even the perspective of the film. That is not within the remit of the CBFC. Words like “public order”, “decency” and “morality” are often used as tools of censorship. Certification should not become censorship.
Jana Nayagan, a big budget film which was to for release on Pongal, is caught in legal wrangles. It had been issued a U/A 16+ certificate but the CBFC chairman decided to refer it to a Revising Committee days before its scheduled release. An order of the Madras High Court, directing the CBFC to issue the certificate, was reversed by another bench, and on appeal, the Supreme Court told the filmmakers to go back to the High Court. The High Court decision is awaited. The delay and the legal battles have major financial implications. It has been observed that the CBFC uses its power selectively. Jana Nayagan’s travails may have been occasioned by its political content or message. The CBFC should not be guided by any considerations other than the principles laid down by the Cinematography Act and the rules under it. But it follows other guidelines.